Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that the response includes the notification payload — but says nothing about not-found behavior, error modes, or payload shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and zero filler. The endpoint reference is a small but useful anchor for agents familiar with the HTTP API.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and full schema documentation, and the description discloses that the payload is returned. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the uuid parameter is fully documented there including its provenance from acube_list_invoice_notifications. The description only restates 'by uuid' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's minLength/maxLength, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('One SDI notification by uuid') and adds scope detail ('with its payload', 'GET /notifications/{uuid}'). The singular 'one ... by uuid' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling acube_list_invoice_notifications, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent must already have a uuid to call this, and the schema note points to acube_list_invoice_notifications as the source. The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-the-list-tool guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.